Common Question-Evasion Tactics

Identify ploys and learn methods to get the specific answers you need.

In her
book Extraordinary Circumstances: The Journey of a Corporate
Whistleblower, Cynthia Cooper, WorldCom Inc.’s chief audit
executive, details the discovery of a fraud that she was able to
unravel, in large part, due to her interviewing skills. At a critical
point in Cooper’s investigation, Buddy Yates, WorldCom’s general
director of accounting, attempted to dodge questions about fraudulent
accounting entries. Undaunted, Cooper immediately recognized the
evasive answers and searched for a clearer explanation. Her polished
interviewing skills are one of the principal reasons she was able to
uncover the fraud at Worldcom.

External
auditors, internal auditors, and many other practicing accountants,
including forensic accountants, face situations similar to Cooper’s:
Interviewees evade answering a question rather than give an
unequivocal answer. Most entry-level accountants and auditors would
benefit by gaining a deeper understanding of why interviewees evade
questions, learning common tactics interviewees use to avoid
questions, and discovering methods to get answers when interviewees
dodge questions.

REASONS PEOPLE AVOID QUESTIONS

Although
evading a question could certainly indicate that someone is
concealing fraud, many people avoid questions for other, innocuous
reasons. Interviewees may avoid answering a question because they do
not know the answer and, feeling embarrassed, want to avoid
appearing unqualified. Others evade questions when they feel that
their answer may have negative repercussions on their reputation,
such as in cases where they have made a mistake.

In
other cases, an interviewer may believe that an interviewee is
avoiding a question when the person simply did not fully understand
the question or clearly explain the answer. Whatever the reason for
evading questions, there are strategies that can help interviewers
identify whether someone is evading a question and address the
interviewee’s tactic.

HOW PEOPLE AVOID QUESTIONS AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

People
evade questions in a number of ways, and an interviewer’s response
should vary with the type of tactic used. To illustrate, imagine
that an auditor discovers that her client (or company) booked two
large sales transactions on the last day of the accounting year.
When the auditor cannot find any supporting documentation for the
transactions (for example, invoices), she decides to ask the
controller for more information. Below, we detail some of the
techniques the controller might use to avoid the auditor’s question
as well as appropriate responses from the auditor.

Attacking
the interviewer. “You
have been in my office three times today already, and I don’t have
time to do your job for you.” In this approach, the respondent
attacks the competence, experience or diligence of the person asking
the question. By responding this way, the interviewee shifts
attention from the issue at hand by trying to intimidate the
auditor. The seemingly disgruntled respondent not only discourages
any immediate follow-up questions, but also discourages any future
questions.

An
attacked interviewer will likely have a “fight or flight” instinct
to either angrily lash back at the respondent or permanently shy
away from the question. Either response, however, would be a
mistake. An effective interviewer recognizes the need to respond in
a way that is tactful yet bold.

For
example, if the auditor does not need an immediate answer to her
question, she might respond, “I understand how important your time
is, but I need more information from you about these transactions. I
have talked with several members of your staff, and they have all
referred me back to you. May I schedule a time to come back this
afternoon to talk to you about these transactions?” With this
response, the auditor is tactful and respectful, yet bold and credible.

Attacking
the question. “Who
cares about the supporting documentation? Those two transactions
alone couldn’t possibly be material.” Using this approach, the
interviewee claims that the question is irrelevant or objectionable.
By attacking the question, the respondent can avoid giving a
potentially damaging answer.

To
respond to this evasion tactic, the interviewer needs to be an
“expert” on the question at hand and explain why the question is
relevant and important. In our example, the auditor might respond,
“As I’ve considered these particular transactions and the impact
they have on the audit, I feel confident that they are material to
the audit and that we will need supporting documentation about these transactions.”

Diverting
the question. “Your
question reminds me that I needed to talk to you about our new
computer system…” With this approach, the respondent sidesteps by
acknowledging the question without answering it, exhausting the
interviewer with a prolonged explanation that does not address the
core question, or giving a broad answer without specifics. By
responding in this way, the interviewee hopes to distract the
interviewer with irrelevant or immaterial information.

To
overcome this evasion tactic, the interviewer needs to establish
clear objectives for the interview and ensure that each of those
objectives has been met by the end of the interview. In our example,
the auditor might consider writing down specific information that
she needs about the two transactions and taking notes as she
receives that information. She might say to the controller, “Those
computer system issues are important, and we’ll discuss them later.
However, right now, I would like to address some documentation
issues before we talk about the computer system.”

Declining
to answer. “I
don’t know the answer to that question. I’ll work on finding the
documentation for you and then get back to you” (without intending
to do so). In this approach, the respondent declines to answer the
question by indicating that he or she lacks the necessary knowledge
or expertise to answer the question (when they really don’t),
promising to “work on it” (without intending to do so), or merely
refusing to answer the question. Respondents often use this tactic
to delay further questions about a sensitive issue, hoping that the
interviewer will forget about the inquiry.

To
respond to someone who uses this tactic, the interviewer must hold
the respondent accountable. If the interviewee promises to “work on
it,” the interviewer should hold him or her accountable by following
up on that commitment. If the interviewee claims that he or she
doesn’t know the answer or simply refuses to answer, the interviewer
should tactfully hold him or her accountable for the expertise or
knowledge that is generally expected of someone in the interviewee’s position.

In
our example, the auditor might respond, “Thank you for looking into
those transactions for us. May I return tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.
to ask what information you’ve found about these two transactions?”

Giving
equivocal answers. “Someone
from the sales department told me that they properly documented both
of those transactions, but that the hard copies wouldn’t be filed
using the normal protocols for some reason.” Under this approach,
the interviewee is equivocal as to who is giving the message (for
example, “someone from the sales department”) or as to the content
of the message (for example, “for some reason”). While the
interviewee seems to answer the question, their answer is overly
ambiguous and consequently unreliable.

To
get an unequivocal answer, the interviewer should employ two
strategies. First, as mentioned before, the interviewer should plan
beforehand the specific information he or she wants to acquire from
the interview. Second, the interviewer should confront the
interviewee for more specific answers when he or she is unable to
get the specific information needed.

An
interviewer can confront the interviewee in a variety of ways that
vary in severity. Depending on the respondent’s cooperation, the
interviewer might confront him or her directly by addressing the
interviewee’s equivocation or indirectly by asking the question
differently. In our example, the auditor might respond, “Was Cindy
Lunt the person from sales who said the transactions were documented
properly? If so, I’ll ask her about the transactions.”

GENERAL TIPS

In
addition to the specific responses to the evasion tactics discussed
above, inexperienced interviewers should keep in mind the following
general tips:

Plan
the interview beforehand. Polished
interviewers do their research before asking questions and know
what they want to accomplish during the interview.

Pay
attention to the respondent’s body language. Interviewees
often communicate more through their body language than through
what they say.

Pay
attention to your body language. Interviewees
respond best to interviewers who remain calm and collected even
when addressing sensitive issues.

Get
help. By
bringing along a trusted colleague or superior, an interviewer
can add credibility to the interview; more effectively take note
of the respondent’s body language; and gain an objective gauge
as to whether questions are being answered satisfactorily.

Accountants
will rarely face an interviewee as direct as one-time presidential
hopeful Paul Tsongas, who once when asked a question is said to have
responded, “That’s a good question. Let me try to evade you.”
However, by understanding the reasons for and ways in which
individuals dodge questions, accountants with limited experience in
interviewing will be better able to respond.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

External
and internal auditors and other practicing accountants,
including forensic accountants, may face situations where an
interviewee evades a question rather than providing an
unequivocal answer.

Understanding
the reasons for and ways in which individuals
dodge questions can help accountants and auditors with limited
interviewing experience prepare for and respond to situations
where an interviewee is evasive.

One
common tactic that interviewees use to
avoid questions is to attack the interviewer. In this situation,
interviewers must be bold and credible in their response to the
attack while remaining tactful and respectful.

Attacking
the question is another method of evasion.
The interviewer needs to be an “expert” on the question at hand
and explain to the interviewee why the question is relevant and
important.

A
respondent may sidestep a question by acknowledging it
without providing an answer. To help elicit a specific response,
the interviewer should establish clear objectives for the
interview and ensure that each of those objectives has been met
by the end of the interview.

When
a respondent declines to answer a question by
indicating that he or she lacks the necessary knowledge or
expertise to answer the question (when he or she really doesn’t)
or promising to “work on it” (without intending to do so), the
interviewer must hold the respondent accountable for the
expertise or knowledge that is generally expected of someone in
the interviewee’s position or by following up on an
interviewee’s promise to work on getting an
answer.

An
interviewer should plan in advance for
overly ambiguous and unreliable answers by knowing the specific
information needed from the interview.

To
access courses, go to aicpalearning.organd click on “On-Site Training” and search by
“Acronym Index.” If you need assistance, please contact a
training representative at 800-634-6780 (option
1).

FVS
Section and CFF credential

Membership
in the Forensic and Valuation Services (FVS) Section
provides access to numerous specialized resources in the
forensic and valuation services discipline areas, including
practice guides, and exclusive member discounts for products
and events. Visit the FVS Center at aicpa.org/FVS. Members
with a specialization in financial forensics may be
interested in applying for the Certified in Financial
Forensics (CFF) credential. Information about the CFF
credential is available at aicpa.org/CFF.

Latest News

FEATURED VIDEOS

Most Read

Features

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING

A good leader recognizes that part of the job is developing the next generation of leaders. Veronica McCann, CGMA, a former division CFO at Commerzbank in Singapore, shares tips on developing future finance leaders.

A weekly snapshot of global accounting with news from the Journal of Accountancy and other leading accounting publications. It includes summaries of what matters to you, written by expert editors to save you time and keep you informed and prepared.